March
17
H'w'd Clinton Bundler Slams Obama, Media
More evidence that the bitterness among the Clinton and Obama camps is seeping down to the donor level.
Daphna Ziman, a Hillary Clinton bundler well-known in Los Angeles political/entertainment circles, raised a lot of hackles last month for an e-mail that questioned Barack Obama's support of Israel.
Ziman has a new piece now circulating, "The Road to the White House Is Paved By a Distorted Media," that chides the media for the coverage of the Eliot Spitzer story (she calls them "wolves" and uses the admonishment "shame on you") but charges that they've treated Obama with kid gloves. But she also questions whether and why he has changed his name, and again brings up his support of Israel.
(According to Newsweek, AIPAC says Clinton, Obama and McCain "have strong congressional voting records on issues important to the U.S.-Israel relationship.")
Ziman writes, "Never in any political race before this presidential “War of the media”, have I witnessed such a censorship of questions that ordinarily would be welcomed. The phenomenon of Barack H. Obama is not just that of a youth movement marching towards the most powerful job on the planet. Or the fact that an African American presidential candidate is inspiring the crowds of college graduates. But the fact that NO QUESTIONS ARE ALLOWED, or if a direct question is posed that there is an inevitable sigh of “How dare you ask?”"
Obama supporters would surely mention one word in rebuttal: "Rezko."
She goes on, "Well, I have many questions that I dare ask Barack (must not mention middle name or else) Obama.
1. Were you born Barry Dunham or Barack Hussein Obama?
2. Did you change your name? When? Where? And Why?
3. Was there a naming ceremony? Where? Under what circumstances?
4 .Why are we not allowed to mention your middle name?""
The full works below:
The Road to the White House is Paved by a Distorted Media
By Daphna Ziman
She stood there in front of a pack of wolves, members of the U.S. media. Her face told a story of a family torn apart by the torment of being touched by evil. As the first lady of New York stepped off the podium accepting the ultimate humiliation, a voice of a media vulture was heard, “Are you going to leave him now?” My stomach turned as I heard those merciless words chase Mrs. Spitzer, a mother, and a wife, out of the press room.
The first thought in my mind was, “Has the media, (so caught up in the eternal chase for eyeballs), lost every essence of decency?” The answer was clear, “Guilty”. “Shame on you!” I thought and then “Shame on us!” came right behind. Not only have we allowed the media to influence the news instead of report the news, we have allowed the media to try and elect the next President of the United States.
I watched Tony Harris on CNN compare Eliot Spitzer to President Clinton. Not only was that an obvious and pathetic attempt to influence the public away from Hillary and towards Obama, but an indecent shot at demeaning the personal crisis of a mother and a wife that took the vow, “for better or worse.”
But then again, what would a “mouth piece” understand about “being a mother” and the enormous strength it takes to protect and support your family. “Shame on you Tony Harris, and every pundit on television who has taken it upon themselves to intentionally hurt families that are already pained.”
Why doesn’t the media focus on the real questions that need to be answered? For example, “Are we supposed to be Blind, Deaf, and Dumb in the 2008 Presidential Election?”
Never in any political race before this presidential “War of the media”, have I witnessed such a censorship of questions that ordinarily would be welcomed. The phenomenon of Barack H. Obama is not just that of a youth movement marching towards the most powerful job on the planet. Or the fact that an African American presidential candidate is inspiring the crowds of college graduates. But the fact that NO QUESTIONS ARE ALLOWED, or if a direct question is posed that there is an inevitable sigh of “How dare you ask?”
Well, I have many questions that I dare ask Barack (must not mention middle name or else) Obama.
Were you born Barry Dunham or Barack Hussein Obama?
Did you change your name? When? Where? And Why?
Was there a naming ceremony? Where? Under what circumstances?
Why are we not allowed to mention your middle name?
It occurred to me that the identity of a potential Commander and Chief is rather important, but in this campaign these kinds of questions pertaining to experience, identity, and character are considered negative. How did Senator Obama spin this illogical protective shield, when transparency is what he is preaching?
There are certain facts that can’t be denied. Obama has admitted to being a member of “The Trinity United Church of Christ” for the past twenty years. This church is headed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who was backstage, as an honored guest when the senator declared his run for the presidency. Rev. Wright and his congregation have honored Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, who has referred to Jews as ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’. Farrakhan has called Obama “The hope of the entire world”. To which the Senator responded when pushed during the last debate that he denounces Farrakhan. My question is:
Why didn’t Obama denounce Farrakhan before the debate?
Why did he wait twenty years to admonish members of the African American community for Anti-Semitism?
He made a provocative speech against the war. Yet, he waited until the race for the White House, before making any statements about such African American resentment towards the Jews.
The response from Obama’s campaign is that his beliefs are contrary at times to those of his spiritual leader. If that is the case, then please Senator Obama, identify such “times” and explain your close association with Bill Ayers. Ayers, now a Chicago University professor, boasted that he participated in the bombing of New York Police head quarters in 1970, of the Capital Building in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972. He spent ten years on the run and surrendered in 1980. Charges were dropped because of “improper surveillance”. Yet, in his book “Fugitive Days” Ayers reflects on whether he might have used bombs against the U.S. and concludes “I can’t imagine entirely dismissing the possibility”.
Barack Obama is Ayers friend and served as a board member with Ayers on a Chicago nonprofit Woods fund-founded by university professor Rashid Khalidi, a harsh critic of Israel. Obama served as a director from 1999 to December 11, 2002. The fund describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged. It provided a grant of $40000.00 to the Arab American Action Network, Rashid’s wife Mona Khalidi was president of the AAAN. A second grant in the amount of $35000.00 was made to the Arab American Action Network in 2002.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
I hesitate to question the public policy insights of someone who thinks the president is "Commander and Chief" (sic).
Posted by: TKD | March 17, 2008 at 03:47 PM
This is hateful garbage.
Posted by: lynn | March 18, 2008 at 06:54 AM
Every day a new smear by the Clinton people. incredible. And will Hillary send this freak's money back and say, 'no thanks, I don't accept contributions from bigots and liars'? Of course not.
Clinton's campaign now defines a new category of politics - the neoCon Democrat.
Posted by: Emmanuel Winner | March 18, 2008 at 07:01 AM
Yes, whether he changed his name, glad we are finally getting down to the important issues. I don't care about the incredible divisiveness of this country (which the clintons contributed to) or the iraq war (which hillary voted for). All I care about is these crybaby issues that the Clintons camp is throwing out with the kitchen sink as roadblocks.
Is my sarcasm coming through clearly? How about this: The voters have spoken, big states or not, this race is over, and the media coverage that still frames it as "close" is the true sign of biased media: Hillary wants the media to be fair and balanced like Fox News, but the idea that she'll catch up is a pipe dream....
Posted by: AintSedIsht | March 18, 2008 at 07:39 AM
this is some seriously hateful spewing. to what end?
barack obama's speech today tackles this issue head on. i hope for a more perfect union.
Posted by: vivicajane | March 18, 2008 at 08:18 AM
Israel first? What about the US first? My question is why the apartheid policies and illegal settlements in Israel cannot be critizied and questioned by our politicians. AIPAC needs to keep its lackies and nose out of US foreign affairs. Period. It is a damn shame that American politicians are selected, not on their commitment to the best interests of America, but by vowing to put the interests of a foreign nation, Israel, first. The oath of allegiance that I said everyday in school was not to Israel, or any country but the U.S.A. A true "friend" of Israel would tell the Israelis they need to end the apartheid occupation of the West Bank and and to stop repressing the legitimate national aspirations of the Palestinians. Aid to Israel should be cut. No other country, abuser or not, of human rights, with or without electoral systems, has the influence over our domestic and foreign policy as does the state of Israel. Israel is not a third world country.It is THE BIGGEST RECIPIENT of U.S. aid in the world THAT REQUIRES NO ACCOUNTABILITY from Israel.Each year US aid to Israel gives each man, woman, and child the equivalent of over $1500.00 each while cutting programs in the US due to "funding".The US subsidizes Israel like hell in many areas, to the detriment of our own US society. Isn’t it about time we question how the U.S., in its support of Israel, can be an evenhanded, honest broker of peace? The time has come for the US to stop pandering to Israel and it's destructive, warmongering policies.Anyone who does their best to silence any discussion of this issue in the campaign and anywhere else does a disservice to the best interests of the US and the Israelis. In this 21st century and the age of the internet Israel’s policies are increasingly transparent, do not coincide with US policies, and their victim ideology just doesn't work anymore. The time is coming when, I hope, our next POTUS, hopefully Obama, will review and put an end to it by cutting aid to Israel.
Posted by: betz55 | March 18, 2008 at 08:29 AM
The Zionist are coming out of the woodwork.
Obama has not been bought and paid for by the zionist lobby unlike Hillary. (you have to in order to win NY)
No more of our hard earned money should go to Israel.
Dignity and peace to the palestinians
Posted by: cyril wilson | March 18, 2008 at 09:13 AM
how dare you accuse obama and his supporters of racism when you are spewing it yourself about something as ridiculous as a name change. i assume by your nonsensical, rabid pro-israel/anti-arab rhetoric that you are jewish, and as a jew myself, i am embarassed by association. you are a f***ing moron--
Posted by: bushman | March 18, 2008 at 09:17 AM
After an historic speech that serves all of America, this dimwit bigot has the temerity to put this small minded crap out to the public.
Here are some more important questions for Ms Ziman:
Where ae Hillary's Tax returns from 2001 to the present?
Where is the list of donors to the Bill Clinton's Library?
Where are Hillary's records as First Lady that show her experience and qualification in Foreign Policy?
These are important questions that need to be answered so there is transparency in our government and our Candidates.
Come on, Ms, Ziman give us the answers.
Posted by: youngharry | March 18, 2008 at 09:49 AM
this is such an ignorant and biased article. and i'm going to second/third all of the comments that bring up the fact that israel is by no means our first priority, nor a second... it sits very low as far as national priorities go. oh, and as much money as we contribute to the terrorist state that is israel, we're not benefitting from any of it. and it definitely has yet to help us win any friends in the arab world, which, oh yea, constitutes a far greater number of people and a broader scope of national interests than israel can or ever will (outside of zionist groups and the ignorant circles of zionist-friendly, evangelical christian). barack '08.
Posted by: joel | March 18, 2008 at 09:50 AM
After an historic speech that serves all of America, this dimwit bigot has the temerity to put this small minded crap out to the public.
Here are some more important questions for Ms Ziman:
Where ae Hillary's Tax returns from 2001 to the present?
Where is the list of donors to the Bill Clinton's Library?
Where are Hillary's records as First Lady that show her experience and qualification in Foreign Policy?
These are important questions that need to be answered so there is transparency in our government and our Candidates.
Come on, Ms, Ziman give us the answers.
Posted by: youngharry | March 18, 2008 at 09:51 AM
Obama is definitely a problem for the Israel lobby and its supportes because they do not own him. Likr every other American politician who is serious about winning, he has done all the kotowing to and asskissing of the Israel lobby that is expected of him. But they do not own him. Since, unlike other Democractic politicians, he is not financially dependent on the campaign contributions of rich Zionist Jews, since he can attract many small contributions from many contributers, he has a degree of independence that makes the Israel lobby uncomfortable. If he becomes President he may, when push comes to shove, actually put the vital interests of the United States above those of Israel, just like President Eisenhower did.
Posted by: CaptainVideo | March 18, 2008 at 09:52 AM
i wish clinton could get her minions to stick to the issues and stop the dirty tricks and smear campaigns. it is making me dislike her more (when i used to be on the fence).
Posted by: shana c | March 18, 2008 at 10:05 AM
clinton supporter ziman is wrong on the facts, wrong in her tone & wrong in her sentiments. but please don't call her names just because she uses her own ethnic background as a starting point for more of the same ol', same ol' politics. shame on all of us for looking thru the glass darkly. let's use obama's message of unity as the starting point for our discussion, not clinton's or her supporters' passe divisive rhetoric.
Posted by: marie burns | March 18, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Barack Obama was named after his father. But, if he did change his name, is that a crime? My God, these people are ridiculous!
Posted by: adl | March 18, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Oh my god, how can people be so stupid? What does Spitzer's Judaism have to do with anything? I'm not inclined to defend him because he's a member of my religion. Same thing with any bad Jew, from Judas to Jack Ruby.
Whatsherface holds some deep-seated hatred toward Obama, a guilty-until-innocent mentality that he must be hiding some horrendous Muslim/terrorist secret because of his skin color and last name. Obama has nothing to do with Farrakhan, why should he apologize? Should Obama apologize for Malcolm X, Idi Amin Dada, and Steve Urkel? Maybe he should make a list of black anti-Semites who he rejects and denies. Or maybe Clintonites should just get a life, and stop trying to make Obama bear the Black Man's Burden.
Posted by: Stephen | March 18, 2008 at 11:04 AM
As a Jew I am offended by her email. This is why there are some who question our patriotism to our Country in context of Israel. As people who were prosecuted through ages we must welcome openness of this country to us and to people of other race or creed. Racism and hate cut both ways, and if we continue to use it for temporary gain it will come back and bite us in future.
Both Obama and Hillary have pro-Israel stance. You could argue Hillary might go a bit further, but at what cost? A war with Iran? We not only didn't argue against a war with Iraq but some us were ardent supporters of it. And look what that has done! Practically bankrupted this country.
Remember, financial prosperity of US should be our primary concern. It has been the road to our prosperity and our ability to shape world opinion about us and support of Israel. Let's think long-term here.
Posted by: sam m stein | March 18, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Fellow Obama supporters, please do not stoop to this woman's level anymore. Expose her for what she is w/out calling names b/c that only furthers the hate. Mr. Obama gave a fantastic speech today and we should not let something like this bring it down. I do find it hard though, for the Clintons to claim nothing racially/culturally insensitive is coming from their campaign when one after another keeps leaking out. Atleast Mr. Obama has the dignity to address issues head on.
Posted by: Johnson | March 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM
NOT THIS TIME, mrs. ziman.
Posted by: Cher | March 18, 2008 at 11:33 AM
I agree with all of the comments that we should STOP supporting the terrorist nation of Israel and SEVERELY curtail AIPAC's contributions to politicians. Let's have a united front against Israeli/AIPAC influence in Washington and foreign policy making. Same goes for religious influence on politics. We CAN do it!
Right on! Right on!! Right on!!!!
Uppity White Woman
Posted by: ROSE | March 18, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Every time this country's level of discourse gets raised, those who cannot discourse at such a high level seek desperately to bring it back down in the mud. What does that tell you about them, and about the campaign they support???
Posted by: disgusted | March 18, 2008 at 12:27 PM
I have so much anger towards jews like Ziman I will not even purchase clothing that carries jewish names on their lables..Kline..etc.
"Shame on you," Ziman says. What chutzpah!
Top Israeli officials are boasting about the new holocaust, that being, the starvation, via the Israeli blockade, of innocent men, women and children in Gaza and not a word about it on network TV.
The Iraq war, pushed by the likes of Lieberman, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, has been all but eliminated from the nightly news. The neocons don't want the American public to know what impact the Iraq war is having on our soldiers and their families.
Israel will not allow water, medicine, food or any other essentials into Gaza and Ziman is concerned about Obama's middle name.
Shame on you...Ms.Ziman!
Posted by: dsmith | March 18, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Ziman needs to ask herself why, when people question Israel in regards to Palestinians, are they automatically and fiercely labeled to be anti-semitic? How would Southern Californians feel if the UN decided that to make up for the Spanish-American War of the 19th century Mexico was allowed to retake San Diego and up to Los Angeles and the American residents of those cities and in between were forced to move and live on Baja California? Don't you think Southern Californians would be just a little pissed off?
Posted by: Mark Billingsley | March 18, 2008 at 01:09 PM
Ziman needs to ask herself why, when people question Israel in regards to Palestinians, are they automatically and fiercely labeled to be anti-semitic? How would Southern Californians feel if the UN decided that to make up for the Spanish-American War of the 19th century Mexico was allowed to retake San Diego and up to Los Angeles and the American residents of those cities and in between were forced to move and live on Baja California? Don't you think Southern Californians would be just a little pissed off?
Posted by: Mark Billingsley | March 18, 2008 at 01:10 PM
they will not let go of their power without destroying the party all together.
Posted by: rachel | March 18, 2008 at 01:29 PM